A Challenge to Young-Earth Creationists

Proposed by Jack DeBaun

"Often a
non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts
of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and
distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and
experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a
Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is
based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing
situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to
scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal
Meaning of Genesis)

The term "young-earth creationist (YEC)" is commonly used with reference to
those who believe that the biblical account of creation as depicted in the Book
of Genesis represents a factual portrayal of actual historical events. As such,
YECs contend that all major categories of life (the so-called "kinds" alluded to
in Genesis) were created in a short span of six literal days a mere several
thousand years ago by supernatural intervention. Although they are reluctant to
be pinned down on the exact timing of this creation event, most YECs believe
that it occurred sometime during the last 10,000 years, or so. According this
model, all forms of life on earth were then derived from these originally
created kinds in the span of a few thousand years. In keeping with a literal
interpretation of the Bible, most YECs also believe in the factual occurrence of
a worldwide Noachian Deluge (purported to have occurred some 4,300 years ago)
which, they further contend, obliterated almost all life on earth at the time
and was responsible for the deposition of the virtually the entire
geologic/fossil
record.

Simply put, the theory of evolution posits that organisms are descended with
modification from ancestral forms, all of which trace their origin to one (or
possibly a small population of) initial life form(s) that originated some 3.5
billion years ago. (Note: The theory of evolution is concerned only with the
development of life forms after the appearance of the first replicators. It does
not deal with the origin of those first replicators.) Corroborative evidence for
this theory is extensive and comes from diverse areas of study such as
paleontology, geology, molecular biology, comparative embryology, homology,
vestigial structures/atavisms, biogeography, and radiometric dating.

Evolution can be defined succinctly as "a process that results in heritable
changes in a population spread over many generations" or "a change in the gene
pool of a population over time." Three things are necessary for the evolutionary
process to occur: 1) a mechanism for introducing changes in genetic material, 2)
a mechanism for fixing such changes in the gene pool, and 3) substantial amounts
of time (considerably more than is allowed by the YEC model) for the reiterative
process to repeat itself. Known mechanisms for introducing genetic change
include such things as mutation, recombination, gene flow, and gene
duplication/divergence. Known mechanisms for fixing changes in the gene pool
include such things as natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift. Since the scientific evidence indicates that
life has existed on earth for some 3.5 billion years, more than enough time has
been available for evolutionary processes to have produced the current levels of
biodiversity. (For a more detailed discussion of the biological processes
involved, see "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" at
www.talkorigins.org.)

The theory of evolution is wholeheartedly endorsed by
virtually the entire scientific community worldwide. Among life and earth
scientists (by training and experience, those who are best equipped to evaluate
the evidence in support of the theory), acceptance is,
for all intents and purposes, unanimous. Fewer than 0.15% of the earth and life
scientists in this country are creationists. (See
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html) Those scientists who oppose the theory
of evolution (no more than 5% of all U.S. scientists according to a poll
reported in Nature, April 1997, pp. 435-436.) commonly lack the
comprehensive training in the relevant disciplines that are essential for a
thorough understanding of the subject. Although they commonly argue otherwise, the
vast majority of this fringe group of evolution-bashing scientists reflexively rejects the theory
of evolution because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, not
because it lacks evidential support.

As defined by the National Academy of Science, a scientific theory is a
"well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Scientists have
confidence in the theory of evolution because of the prodigious (and growing)
database of scientific evidence that supports it. (See the Internet references
above.) In other words, the vast majority of scientists endorse the theory of
evolution because, at present, it offers the only viable scientific explanation
for the diversity of life on earth.

In spite of fact that their model finds itself grossly at odds with the findings of
modern science, many YECs continue to argue that the Genesis account provides a
reliable basis for scientific research. (See the Answers in Genesis website
"Statement of Faith".) Most of them argue that their literally-interpreted,
Bible-based model provides a better explanation for diversity of life forms than
does the theory of evolution. The clear implication from creationist literature
is that they think the YEC model is superior to that of the evolution model from
a scientific standpoint and that the latter should be discarded in favor of the
Bible-based approach. For example, according to The Tenets of Creationism from
the Institute for Creation Research , "The [biblical]creation record is factual,
historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories on origin or development which
involve evolution in any form are false".

In order for a new scientific theory to supersede an established one, the new
theory must have superior explanatory and predictive capabilities compared to
the old model. So here is the YEC challenge: 1. Describe the YEC model in
some detail and explain how it meets the criteria of scientific authenticity. 2.
Consider the following factual observations, and demonstrate how the YEC model
provides a better scientific explanation for these observations than does the
evolution model. If you are unable to demonstrate its superiority, then describe
how it provides at least as good a scientific explanation for the observed facts
as does the evolution model. (If YECs can simply accomplish the latter, at
least they will have finally succeeded in providing some justification for their
insistence on including the Genesis model in the public school science
curriculum. Keep in mind that miraculous/supernatural explanations do not
constitute valid scientific arguments. It is a basic tenet of the scientific
method that genuine scientific models, hypotheses, theories, laws, etc. must
utilize explanations that invoke only natural causes and effects that can be
properly tested and falsified.)

Disclaimer: It is not my intention with this challenge to ridicule
those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I respect the
right of every individual to believe whatever they desire. If people want to
attribute what appear to be miraculous events in the biblical creation story to
supernatural intervention, that is their prerogative. So long as they do not
claim scientific verification of such events, I raise no objection. This challenge is
targeted specifically at those who make the claim that the literally-interpreted
creation story as depicted in Genesis has been scientifically corroborated and
is in full agreement with the factual evidence.

None of the following lines of evidence are original on my part. In this
challenge, I have listed what I consider to be some of the more pertinent
observations (obtained from various Internet sources) that support the
evolutionary model. Hyperlinks to the original sources are provided in cases
where they could be clearly identified.

1. OBSERVATIONS FROM STUDIES OF THE FOSSIL RECORD

The geologic column often contains clean, sharp lines at the boundaries
between the geologic layers. Layers which face upward often have fossil
limpets or barnacles attached to them, indicating that the layers had time to
harden into rock and attract rock-climbing shellfish before the next stratum
was laid down. How could these successive periods of deposition and hardening
into rock have occurred during the year of the Flood?

Why, if the Flood took place rapidly, are sandstones nearly always devoid
of fossils? Evolutionists explain this as being due to the fact that, over
very long periods of time, shells are oxidized and abraded out of existence
by the action of the sand. How do creationists explain the absence of these
fossils?

There are fossil ammonites whose spiral shells contain buoyancy chambers
and are, therefore, very light. Yet these fossils are never found in the
upper strata of the column. Ammonoid species ranging in size from a fraction
of and inch to several feet across are all found together in the same
deposit lower in the strata. How does this observed sorting fit in with the
hydraulic mechanism that is often used by creationists to explain the order
of fossils in the column?

In spite of the fact that many centers of civilization were located at or
near sea level, there is not a single human fossil below the topmost layer
of the column. How were all the people who suffered from physical handicaps
able to outrun the rapidly advancing floodwaters? What about all
the people who would have died and been buried prior to the Flood? Why
is there a complete absence of any human graves in the lower strata?

A remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology appears in the fossil
record. Primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then
primitive mammals, then legged whales, then legless whales, etc. How does
the YEC model explain this temporal pattern?

Pterodactyl fossils are found only in the middle layers of the column. Is
it reasonable to assume that not a single one of them could have flown to
higher land in advance of the Flood?

Some species of oysters are only found in layers that are higher than
those that contain many species of clams. How can this be reconciled with
the Flood model in view of the fact that oysters are "glued" to the bottom
and clams are usually unattached?

Brachiopod fossils are often found in alternating layers. After they were
buried, the sediment hardened into rock and another layer of brachiopods
grew on top of them. Repetition of the cycle formed these alternating
layers. How do Flood geologists account for this phenomenon?

Not one human being, horse, cow, fox, deer, tortoise, or monkey was so
slow, so stupid, or so crippled to have been drowned in what would become
the lower layers of the column. And not one dinosaur, trilobite, or mammoth
was fast or nimble enough to make it to higher ground. How are these facts
explained by the YEC model?

Trilobites, light, fragile creatures resembling pill bugs, tend to be
found only in the deepest layers. They are never found in the upper layers
with mammals (not even marine animals). How could this relationship be
possible in the aftermath of the Flood?

Fossils of flowering plants do not occur until after the
early Cretaceous era. Not a single blade of grass nor a single grass pollen
grain has ever been found below the Tertiary strata in what are purported to
be the earlier Flood deposits. What Flood-related mechanism could
explain the lack of grass and flowering plants in lower layers? What mechanism
allowed the grasses and flowering plants to scramble up the hillsides faster
than most ferns?

Characteristic pollens and spores are associated with specific animal
fossils in each stratum. How could the Flood have sorted pollens and spores
so specifically into discrete layers?

The only mammals buried in the same layers with the dinosaurs were the
small primitive eutherians. How could dinosaurs have lived together with
humans, horses, cows, elephants, and rats, and yet the only mammals to be
buried in the same strata with them are these small transitional eutherians?

Whales and dolphins are found only in the higher layers, while ancient
marine reptiles of very similar size and body plan are only found much
lower. Ichthyosaurus and porpoises (aquatic animals with very similar body
plan) are never once found in same layers, crabs and trilobites are never
found in same layer, and small pterosaurs and equal-sized birds and bats
are never found in the same layers. How does the YEC model explain this sorting?

Sardines and swordfish (teleostean fish) first appear in the late
Triassic times. Why aren’t these deep-sea fish found in the lowest strata if
the Flood was responsible for their demise?

Mesozoic fish are always found in layers lower than the corals and snails
of the Cenozoic period. How does the YEC model explain this sorting?

Fossils of scleractinian corals appear in the column above layers that
contain two other orders of coral. How could these scleractinian corals have
remained suspended during the Flood while these other two orders of coral
settled beneath them?

Thick layers of microscopic diatoms occur in layers that are separated
from the thick layers of microscopic radiolarians that lie beneath them. How
does the YEC model explain this precise sorting of these microscopic
creatures?

There is a relative order to the fossilized species of plants. Relatively
modern plants such as apple and orange trees occur in the upper layers.
Below them are the first magnolias. And below them are the first ginkgoes,
which appear in association with the dinosaurs. How does the YEC model
explain this sorting?

Primitive conifers appear in the column in lower layers than angiosperms
such as willows and lily pads. How does the YEC model explain the fact that
conifers (normally associated with mountainous environments) first appear in
layers that are lower than lowland-loving plants, which normally grow near
surface water?

In Yellowstone Park at Specimen Ridge, 27 fossil forests are buried (as a
result of repeated volcanic eruptions) one atop the other in rocky debris.
As the rock erodes today, the petrified trees stand upright, many with
complete root systems anchored in the underlying "soil" (now turned to
rock). The oldest trees in these fossil forest are about 500 years old.
Since it requires some 200 years for the igneous rock from the volcanic
eruptions to decay into reasonable soil, each forest represents an
approximate 700-year cycle. Therefore, the entire formation required some
20,000 years to accumulate. How does the YEC model account for the Specimen
Ridge formation and for the fact it encompassed some 20,000 years in the
making? (See "Fossil Forests and the Flood" at
www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm for more details.)

The Karroo Formation in Africa is estimated to contain the fossilized
remains of some 800 billion vertebrate animals. The average size of these
animals is approximately that of a fox. Assuming (on the high side) that the
Karroo Formation contains 1% of all the vertebrate land fossils on earth and
that these fossils were laid down in the purported Flood, then, before the
flood began, there would have to have been at least 2,100 animals per acre,
ranging from shrews to dinosaurs. How does the YEC model explain how such a
density of animals could have been sustained? (See "Problems with a Global
Flood - Producing the Geological Record" at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord for more
details.)

Limestone deposits consist of tremendous numbers of skeletons of
microscopic sea animals. Some of these deposits are thousands of meters
thick and contain well-ordered sequences of fossils of other sea creatures.
How does the Flood model account for such formations? (See "Problems with a
Global Flood - Producing the Geological Record" at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
for more details.

Afossil discovered in Arctic Canada represents a
clear-cut transition from aquatic to terrestrial animals. As described
on the Science News website, "The
newly found species, Tiktaalik roseae, has a skull, a neck, ribs and parts of
the limbs that are similar to four-legged animals known as tetrapods, as well
as fish-like features such as a primitive jaw, fins and scales." The
fossil was discovered in strata that corresponded to the environment and time
frame in which evolutionary scientists predicted it would be found. How
could such a discovery and its location have been predicted using the Flood
model? See "Fossil Fish With 'Limbs' is Missing Link, Study Says" at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish_2.html
for more details.

When fossils are arranged according
to their morphological characteristics, they form a so-called tree of life in
which a central trunk branches into the vast interconnected array of species
that have ever existed on earth. This observed arrangement, also known
as a nested hierarchy, is a fundamental prediction of the theory of evolution.
While fossils confirm this arrangement, other characteristics of living
organisms such as anatomical structures, biochemical processes, embryological
development, and genetic composition also conform to this same general plan.
Common descent with modification (i.e., evolution) predicts that a single tree
with one trunk will exist, and that is what is observed. Special
creation predicts that multiple trees (corresponding to the various biblical
"kinds") will exist. Put another way, special creation predicts that there
should be a separate mammal tree, a separate fish tree, a separate frog tree,
etc. and that there should not be common evolutionary roots that link the
bases of these trees together. That is not what is observed. How
does the Flood model account for this observed nested hierarchical arrangement
of life on earth? (See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy for
more information on the subject.)

Not a single human artifact (tool, eating utensil, wheel,
weapon, pottery shard, coin, jewelry, work of art, building block, item of furniture etc.) has
ever been found to have been naturally buried in the same strata as that of the dinosaurs. If
humans and dinosaurs coexisted as the YEC model contends, how can this
complete failure to find any human artifacts in conjunction with dinosaur
remains be accounted for?

2. OBSERVATIONS FROM STUDIES OF GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS

Angular unconformities are common geologic structures that involve
multiple, time-consuming steps in their formation. These steps include: 1.
Deposition of sediments from a body of water, 2. Conversion of the sediments
into rock by compression and heating, 3. Tilting of the sedimentary rock due
to tectonic forces, 3. Erosion of the upper portion of the tilted rock to
give a surface parallel to the ground, 4. Subsidence of the eroded surface
or increase in water levels, 5. Deposition of more sediment on top of the
eroded surface of the tilted column of rock, and 6. Conversion of the
uppermost sediment layer into rock by compression and heating. How does the YEC model explain how such time-consuming processes could have taken place
during the Noachian Deluge or during the few thousand years since the time it is
claimed to have occurred? (See
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/historical_lab/relativedating.htm
for more details. Also see "Angular Unconformities" at
www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html#A08 for a refutation of YEC
arguments commonly raised regarding this subject.)

The geologic column contains a number of features preserved in rock that
were originally formed in water-free environments. For example, sand-witched
between rock layers deep within the column are such things as dried raindrop
impressions, wind-blown desert sand dunes, meter-thick layers of rock salt,
dried animal tracks, and desiccation cracks in mud. How does the YEC model
explain how features such as these could have been formed, preserved, and
converted into rock (sand-witched between other layers of rock) underwater
during the purported Flood? (See "Problems with a Global Flood - Producing
the Geological Record" at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord
and "The Multiple Droughts During the Global Flood" at
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/droughts.htm
for more details.

Varves are annual deposits of sediment that occur at the bottom of
certain bodies of water. Each varve consists of sequential layers of
materials (such as silts and pollens) that are characteristic of the
specific seasons of the year. Many ancient lake bottoms (such as those found
in the Green River Formation) contain several million such varves which, in
some cases, have animal footprints preserved between them. A good
correlation between depositional age and radiometric dating has been
obtained in a number of cases. (See
www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html)
How does the YEC model account for the deposition of millions of annual
layers if the earth is only several thousand years old? (See
http://www.answersincreation.org/varves.htm,
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm,
and "Greene’s Creationism Truth Filter – Flood Geology
Nonsense" at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html#A04 for a refutation of YEC arguments commonly raised regarding this
subject.)

Batholiths are, by definition, igneous formations that have a surface
area of at least 100 square kilometers. Some of these formations that
intrude into older sediments have experienced substantial erosion on their
upper surfaces and have been overlain with younger sediments. At known rates
of cooling, several millions of years would be required to bring these
formations to the temperatures at which they exist today. How does the YEC
model explain how these formations could have cooled and that some of them
could have undergone extensive erosion during a few thousand years since the
purported Flood? (See
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-coolmagma.html. for a refutation of YEC arguments commonly
raised regarding this subject.)

At average observed rates of growth, the Eniwetok coral reef would have
required over 170,000 years to achieve its present size. According to the
YEC model, the reef’s formation would have been expected to have occurred
sometime after the purported Flood. How does the YEC model account for the
inherent time discrepancies implicit in these observations? (See "Specific Arguments-Coral Reef"
at
www.infidels.org/library/modern.dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/coral_reef.html for more details.)

The so-called K/T boundary lies between the Cretaceous and Tertiary strata
in sedimentary rock deposits. This boundary, which is similar worldwide,
contains a relatively high concentration of the element, iridium. Iridium is
rare on the earth's surface, but is more abundant in asteroids and the earth's
interior. The K/T boundary is also the strata above which dinosaurs no longer
appear in the geologic column. One current theory holds that the iridium
in the K/T boundary is the result of a asteroid impact which caused
significant changes in the environment that contributed to the extinction of
the dinosaurs. Another theory posits that the iridium was deposited by intense
volcanism that had similar detrimental environmental effects. What
mechanism during the purported Flood accounts for the fact that a uniform
layer of iridium containing sediment has become sandwiched between other
sedimentary rock layers exactly at the point above which dinosaurs cease to
appear in the column and are superseded by the larger mammals? (See
www.student.oulu.fi/~jkorteni/space/boundary/ for more details.)

Paleosols are ancient soils that develop during
extensive periods of weathering and exposure to air. These soils are
found interspersed throughout the geologic column. Their formation can
only occur when the sediments from which they were derived were not covered
with water for extended periods of time. How does the Flood model
account for the formation of these strata which can only develop under
conditions that preclude inundation with water? (See "Radiometric
Dating, Paleosols, and the Geologic Column: Three strikes against Young Earth
Creationism" at
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm for more details.)

The modern Hawaiian Islands are composed of basaltic
rock that originated from volcanic action. There is very little to no
sediment accumulation on any of them. How could the Hawaiian Islands
have escaped sediment deposition if they had been inundated by the Flood?

The great conglomerate sea cliffs near Marseilles, France are hundreds of
feet high and contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. How could a flood
deposit a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then
place the boulder-laden conglomerates on top? Clearly the bottom layer must
have already hardened into rock before the boulders were deposited or they
would have sunk into it. How could this rock-forming process have occurred
during the relatively short time span of the Flood?

A core sample of sedimentary rock was
taken from a section of geologic column that is claimed by YECs to have been
deposited by the Flood. This core contained about 250 successive layers
of roots, each layer representing a year's worth of growth. How does the
YEC model account for the formation of these successive layers of annual root
growth, one on top of the other, in soils that would have been submerged deep
under water for roughly one year? (See "10 years of Root Growth from
7,000feet down" at
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm#roots for more details.)

Three-dimensional seismic studies
reveal that river channels are buried deep in the geologic column. In
one case, a river channel cut in limestone was positioned between several
thousand feet of fossil-bearing sediment below and some 1600 feet of
fossil-bearing sediment above. If, as YECs claim, the fossils were
deposited during the Flood, how did a river carve this channel in limestone
deep underneath the raging floodwaters? (See "River Channels Buried Deep in
the Geologic Column" at
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rivchan.htm for more details.)

The earth's magnetic polarity has
reversed numerous times during the planet's history. Evidence for some
of these reversals can be found by examining the orientation of magnetic
particles in sea floor deposits adjacent to the mid-Atlantic rift.
Molten crustal rock emerges along the rift and spreads out in both directions.
During this process, magnetic particles in the rocks align with the magnetic
field that exists at the time of emergence. Because the magnetic field
undergoes reversals, a pattern of oppositely magnetized bands is created (as a
mirror image) on both sides of the rift as the rocks move tectonically across
the ocean floor. Some 171 bands corresponding to magnetic reversals have
been identified, extending back over 76 million years. How do YECs
explain these observations in terms of their young-earth Flood model?
(For more information on this subject, see "Creationists and 'Magnetic Field
Decay'" at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/magnetic.htm, "Sea
Floor Spreading" at
http://atlas.geo.cornell.edu/education/student/tectonics/sea_floor_spreading_i.html
, and "Is the Earth's Magnetic Field Young?" at
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/magfield.htm.)

Astrophysical observations show that
the rotation of the earth has been slowing (and the number of days per year
has been decreasing) since it first formed. Calculations based on these
observations show that there is a very close agreement between the predicted
number of days in a year, the measured number of days based on coral growth
characteristics, and the measured age of fossil corals. The results are
consistent with fossil coral ages extending back some 400 million years ago.
How do YECs account for these correlations? (For a more detailed
discussion of this subject, see "Coral Growth and Geochronometry" at
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~springport/geology/coral_growth.html.)

Evidence gathered from core samples
taken by the Glomar Challenger show that the Mediterranean Sea has been
subjected to repeated cycles of drying and re-flooding over a period of
millions of years. Analysis of the core samples reveals a geologic
history that involved multiple cycles of deposition of sediments, compression
of the sediments into stone, erosion of the stone into canyons (some larger
than the modern Grand Canyon), and reburial of these canyons under thousands
of feet of new sediments. Contained within these sediments are multiple
layers of evaporites and weathered interfaces that take thousands of years to
accumulate and that can only form under exposed conditions. How does the
YEC model explain this evidence? (For a more detailed discussion of this
subject, see "The Mediterranean Was a Desert" at
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-10-mediterranean-was-desert.html. )

Over 160 impact structures that were
formed by the collision of extra-terrestrial objects with the earth have been
identified. (See
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/essay.html for more details.)
The vast majority of the impacts that formed these massive structures, which
occur at various depths in the geologic column above the so-called Flood
basement rock, were not recorded by humans. Considering that numerous
other earth-altering events (earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, etc.) have been
regularly recorded throughout human history, it seems odd that so few of these
impacts were noted in historical documents if, as YECs contend, humans have
been present on earth since shortly after its inception. Some YECs argue that
most of these impacts occurred during the chaos of the Flood, and were,
therefore, not recorded. How could these collisions of nuclear bomb
proportions have occurred during the Flood without causing massive waves that
would have smashed the wooden Ark like a toy?

Oil contains certain chemicals that
derive from the organic materials from which it was formed. The
distribution of these chemicals in oil correlates with the sequence of these
organic precursor materials as they appeared in the geologic column. For
example, there is no oleanane in oil deposits older than the last epoch of the
Cretaceous because the angiosperms from which this chemical is derived did not
exist prior to that time. A similar time line exists for chemicals in
oil such as 24-norcholestane (which is not present until the appearance of the
diatoms) and vitrain (which is not present until the appearance of land
plants). How is this relationship explained in terms of the Flood model?
(See approximately one-third the way down the page
here for
more details.)

The Atacama desert in Chile contains
river beds that have not had water running in them for 120,000 years.
Some areas of this desert have been in a hyper-arid condition for at least 20
million years. How can these facts be accounted for in terms of the YEC
model? (See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4437153.stm for more details.)

The human genome contains a great deal of what is referred to as
non-functional DNA, i.e., DNA that is not translated into proteins. Because
these elements are not functional in the usual sense, they are passed from
generation to generation without experiencing the selective pressures
brought about by natural selection. Humans do not have the ability to
synthesize vitamin C because the gene involved in vitamin C synthesis is
non-functional in humans. In other animals that can produce vitamin C, this
same gene functions properly. In other words, humans have the same gene, but
it is "broken" so to speak. Chimpanzees and gorillas also posses this same
gene which is broken in the same manner as it is in humans. The odds
of this pattern of shared mutations occurring by chance are extremely low. But this is exactly what
we would expect to see if humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas were all
descended from a common ancestor who first experienced this defective gene.
Because this ancestor ate a diet that was adequate in vitamin C, the defect
had no overt consequences and could be passed on without harm to succeeding
generations. (See
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000467.html for further discussion
on the subject.)

Cytochrome c is a cellular protein involved in a process known as
electron transport. Studies have shown that only about a third of the 100
amino acids that make up this protein are essential to its function. Most of
the amino acids are "hypervariable" and can be replaced by a large number of
functionally equivalent analogs. H.P. Yokey ("Information Theory and
Molecular Biology", New York, Cambridge University Press, 1992) has
calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible sequences of
amino acids that would provide functionality to cytochrome c. In spite of
this incredible number of possible functional sequences, humans and
chimpanzees have exactly the same cytochrome c sequence, whereas other
organisms have different ones.

Because of the redundancy of the DNA coding system, there are over 10^49
different DNA sequences that could code for the exact same amino acid
sequence in cytochrome c. In humans and chimps, the DNA sequence that codes
for cytochrome c differs by only a single base unit.

Transposons are virus-like genetic sequences that randomly insert
themselves into host DNA. Except in rare instances, they are passed on from
generation to generation by DNA duplication and inheritance. One important
transposon is known as the "Alu" element. All mammals contain many of these
elements, which constitute about 10% of the human genome. In the human a-globin
cluster there are seven Alu elements, and all of them are also present in
the chimp in exactly the same seven locations.

Retroviruses are the molecular remains of past viral infections that
occur in host DNA. They are produced when viruses insert their own DNA into
the DNA of the host’s germ line cells. These randomly inserted sequences are
then passed on by inheritance to the host’s descendants. There are at least
seven different know instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps
and humans. (For details regarding these first five examples see "29 Evidences
for Macroevolution Part 4: Molecular Sequence Evidence" at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .)

If humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor, as
evolutionary theory contends, then both species should have the same, or
very similar, number of chromosomes. It turns out that humans have 23
chromosomes in their gamete cells and chimpanzees have 24. The evidence
strongly indicates that a chromosomal fusion event has occurred in humans in
the intervening time since humans and chimpanzees evolved from their common
ancestor. G banding is process of analyzing DNA to obtain a detailed
"fingerprint" that is characteristic of each chromosome. Chromosome 2 in
humans has exactly the G banding pattern that one would expect if two of the
chimpanzee chromosomes had fused end-to-end. Every chromosome has two
teleomeres (one on each end) and a centromere in the middle. Human
chromosome 2 has two extra teleomeres and one extra centromere in precisely
the locations that one would expect had they resulted from the fusion of the
two chimpanzee chromosomes. (See
www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html ,
"Comparison of Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common
Ancestry"for more details.

Humans and chimpanzees both have nonfunctional pseudogenes (consisting of
915 nucleotides) for the enzyme urate oxidase. These pseudogenes are 98%
homologous in the coding regions comparing both species. The pseudogenes are
nonfunctional because they include "stop codons" that interrupt proper
translation of the genetic message at the point where they occur. Normally
such "stop codons" occur at the end of the genetic sequence in functional
genes. In the chimpanzee and human pseudogene, the first "stop codon"
(which prevents approximately 90% of the protein from being translated) occurs
at exactly the same place in the genetic sequence.

In chimpanzees, a gene called CMAH codes for a sugar that coats the
surface of cells. Humans also have a version of this gene that is
nonfunctional. This human version contains a long stretch of "junk" DNA that
renders the code nonsensical. This useless version now occurs in every human
being. The theory of evolution explains why chimpanzees and humans have this
same gene, even though it is nonfunctional in the latter. How does the
YEC model account for the presence of a broken chimpanzee gene in humans? (See
www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2002/articles_2002_6.html for more
details.)

The forgoing observations from molecular biological studies are readily
explicable in terms the evolutionary model of common descent, i.e., humans,
chimpanzees, and gorillas evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. Keeping in
mind that there are some 3 billion different insertion points in the human
genome, describe, in scientific terms, how the YEC model predicts and explains
such observations.

The process that converts DNA into proteins utilizes codes that consist
of three-nucleotide units. The arrangement of the nucleotides in these
coding units specifies the type and order of amino acids that are
incorporated into the protein. Most species share the same genetic codes.
For example, species as diverse as E. coli bacteria, tobacco plants,
and humans share the exact same coding specificity. Those organisms that
utilize a different code for a particular amino acid are known to be derived
from those that had the standard code, and, even in this case, the rest of
the codes are the same as in all other organisms. Moreover, regardless of
any coding differences, all forms of life use fundamentally the same complex
molecular machinery for interpreting the code and carrying out protein
synthesis. This evidence makes sense in terms of descent from a common
ancestor and limited evolution of certain codons. Keeping in mind that many
other genetic codes could function equally well in organisms that were
produced from scratch, explain how the YEC model accounts for the fact that
all known genetic codes are very similar, with an extremely high degree of
statistical significance. (For more details see
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gencode.htm.)

All small cats (from the jungle cat, F. chaus, to the domestic
cat, F. catus) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In
contrast, the cat lineages that diverged before the small cat lineage (lion,
cheetah, and leopard) and all other carnivores lack this retrogene. How does
the YEC model account for the fact that this type of aberrant genetic noise
is present only in those species that share a common heritage as deduced
from evolutionary studies?

Data show that silent mutations (mutations that change the
DNA sequence but still code for the same amino acid) in protein coding DNA
(genes) are much more common than those that alter an amino acid.
Furthermore, the longer those mutated genes have been separated on the
evolutionary time scale, the greater are the differences between them. This is
readily explicable in terms of evolutionary mechanisms. Silent mutations are
much more common because they are not weeded out by natural selection.
And the differences are greater between more evolutionarily diverse species
because the silent genes have had more time to mutate. How does the YEC
model account for this consistent pattern? Did the Creator insert such
pointless differences in DNA just for the heck of it? Or was He
purposely trying to confuse the issue?

So-called jumping genes produce several copies of
themselves that are inserted at random places in chromosomes. The order and
location of some jumping genes along a chromosome is the same in humans and
mice. More remarkable, some damaged copies (that are damaged in exactly the
same way) also occur in the same place in the human and the mouse chromosome.
Finding a jumping gene that is damaged in the same way in the same place in
both human and mouse genomes is compelling evidence that the human and mouse
must have shared a common ancestor in which these insertions initially
occurred. How does the YEC model explain the commonality in the order,
location, and identical type of damage of these randomly inserted, broken DNA
sequences between the human and the mouse? For more details on this and
the preceding topic, see
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm .

4. OBSERVATIONS FROM COMPARATIVE EMBRYOLOGY STUDIES

As an organism develops through its various embryonic stages, it
sometimes displays features that harken back to the evolutionary ancestors
from which it descended. All vertebrate embryos are very similar and develop
gill-like structures that eventually form gills only in fish.

The early human embryo has gill-like structures, pairs of aortic arches
(adult birds and mammals, being warm-blooded, have only one aortic arch
instead of two as in amphibians and reptiles), a fish-like heart with a
single atrium and ventricle, as well as a tail with muscles for wagging.

In baleen whales (which have no teeth), certain embryonic stages have
tooth buds which are resorbed at birth and never erupt through the gums. In
certain of these stages, the embryo also has a coat of hair which is lost
before birth. Evolutionary scientists explain this as being due to the fact
that the whale retains genes, that are no longer fully expressed, that it
has inherited from its evolutionary ancestors that had both hair and teeth.

In a like manner, elephant embryos at certain stages of development have
four rudimentary tusks, two on the upper jaw and two on the lower. The lower
tusks are resorbed before birth leaving only those growing from the upper
jaw in the adult. The fossil record shows that the evolutionary ancestors of
elephants Eocene and Oliogocene Periods had four tusks arranged just like
they are in the embryo of the elephant.

So-called Hox genes are regulatory elements that control the expression
of other genes. In some cases they inhibit the expression of genes acquired
from evolutionary ancestors. Disabling Hox genes can result in renewed
activation of these suppressed ancestral genes. For example, disabling the
Hoxa –2 gene in mice resulted in the development of a skeletal structure
corresponding to reptilian upper jaw cartilage. This "reconstituted" jaw is
similar to that of the therapsids which are the evolutionary link between
reptiles and mammals. Similarly, disabling the Hox-4 genes resulted in the
conversion of mouse occipital bones into occipital vertebrae, a situation
analogous to that which occurred in aganthans – the presumed ancestors of
all vertebrates. (See
www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoLimb.html for more details.)

During dolphin embryogenesis, a number of processes occur
which are indicative of a terrestrial ancestry. For example, hind-limb
buds develop and are then reduced. The precursors of "fingers" appear on
the forelimb limb-bud and are then replaced with flippers. The nose, first
located at the tip of the snout as it is in land animals, migrates backward
until it is situated on the top of the head, above the eyes. (See
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DLDD/
for more details.)

As above, explain, in scientific terms, how the YEC model provides at least
as good an explanation for these observations as does the theory of evolution.

5. OBSERVATIONS FROM HOMOLOGY STUDIES

Different species show morphological similarities (homologies) that are
consistent with theory that they share a common ancestry. For example, the
fossil evidence indicates that tetrapods (vertebrates with four limbs,
including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) descended from a common
ancestor that had five-digit limbs. In all the tetrapods, this same basic
five-digit design has been utilized and modified to carry out a variety of
different functions such as grasping, walking, digging, flying, swimming,
etc. (Note: Adult birds actually have tree digit limbs, but embryonically
these digits develop from a five-digit precursor.) There is no logical
reason that the limbs in these animals should be restricted to five digits
if the animals had arisen independently without any predetermined design
constraints. Fossils from the Devonian period, when the common ancestor to
the tetrapods is thought to have lived, show evidence of successful species
with six-, seven-, and eight-digit limbs. Therefore, functionality is not
dependent on the five-digit limb.

The forelimbs of such diverse species as man, the seal, the bat, and the
dog appear to be quite different on superficial examination. Nonetheless,
they all share a common basic design. Each consists of modified versions of
a single upper-arm bone, two lower-arm bones, several wrist bones, and five
digits. If these functionally diverse structures were built from scratch,
why are they all constrained to this basic morphological plan?

The giant panda has five normal digits and a sixth "thumb" for grasping
bamboo shoots. However, this "thumb" is not constructed like a normal digit.
It is a makeshift appendage modified from a greatly enlarged wrist bone. How
does the YEC model account for the fact that, if the giant panda had been
created independently, it would not have been equipped with a fully
functional normal thumb?

Another example of homology involves a cranial nerve that goes from the
brain to the larynx via a tube near the heart. In the fish, this path is a
short and direct route. And in all species that have this homologous nerve, it
follows the same path. This means that in an animal like the giraffe, this
nerve makes a detour from the brain all the way down to the heart and back in
order to connect two organs that are only a little more that a foot apart. So
the giraffe has to grow 10-15 extra feet of nerve compared to the direct
connection. The nerve takes this circuitous route because, if evolutionists
are correct, giraffes are descended from a fish-like ancestor where this route
is a direct connection. While evolutionary processes resulted in the
lengthening of the giraffe’s neck, the original neural routing was preserved
from its fish-like ancestor. And, all other species that have this homologous
nerve have the same arrangement. (For a more detailed discussion of homology
as it pertains to the theory of evolution see "Evolution makes Sense of Homologies"
at
www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures/Lecture5/Overheads.html.)

Keeping in mind that homology can be defined as a "detailed similarity of
organization that is functionally unnecessary", explain, in scientific
terms, how the YEC model provides at least as good an explanation for this
factual evidence does is the theory of evolution.

6. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY OF VESTIGIAL STRUCTURES AND ATAVISMS

There are many examples of rudimentary and nonfunctional structures that
are present in various organisms. For example, most pythons carry vestigial
pelvises hidden beneath their skin, some legless lizards have nonfunctional
legs underneath their skin, many cave-dwelling animals are blind but have
nonfunctional eyes, dandelions (which do not produce sexually) retain
flowers and produce pollen, 90% of adult humans develop third molars which
often fail to erupt from the gums and are malformed and impacted, and many
flightless beetles have fully formed wings trapped under fused wing covers.
All of these examples can be explained in terms of remnants of beneficial
structures that once served a useful purpose in the organism’s evolutionary
ancestors. It is noteworthy that vestigial structures are never inconsistent
with the evolutionary history of the species in which they occur. In other
words, vestigial nipples never occur in any amphibians, birds, or reptiles
because mammals evolved after and/or from a different branch of the
evolutionary tree than these other classes of animals. Likewise, mammals
never have vestigial feathers and arthropods never have vestigial backbones
in keeping with their evolutionary heritage.

Atavisms are developmental throwbacks to the body structure of
evolutionary ancestors that appear in modern animals. Many examples of
atavism occur in nature when ancestral genes that are normally inactivated
are expressed for one reason or another. Extra toes on horses, hind limbs on
whales (complete with femurs, tibia, and fibulae, feet, and digits), eyes in
cave dwelling salamanders, supernumerary nipples, open "gill" clefts,
rudimentary legs on snakes, hyoid muscles in dogs, and the dew claw in dogs
are all examples of this phenomenon.

The vomeronasal organ, present
in the roof of the mouths of rodents and other mammals, is an olfactory organ
whose main function is the detection of sex pheromones. Some humans have
rudimentary forms of this organ in their nasal passages. Nonetheless,
the cells in the human vomeronasal organ are atypical and have no nerve
connections to the brain. Furthermore, virtually all the genes that code
for its cell surface receptors are inactive. See
here and
here
for more information.)

One of the most interesting atavisms from the human perspective has to do
with the appearance of true tails in our species. More than 100 cases of human
tails (some of which are not actual tails, but pseudo-tails) have been
reported in the medical literature. Some two thirds of the well-documented
cases represent true tails. The true human tail consists of a complex
arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of
longitudinally arranged striated muscle, blood vessels, nerves, and a normal
skin covering complete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous
glands. These true human tails, which range from one to five inches in length,
are capable of movement and contraction. Several human tails have been
reported as having cartilage and up to five well-developed vertebrae. (See the
sections on Anatomical Vestigial Structures and Atavisms in "29 Evidences for
Macroevolution: Part 2" at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html for more details.)

All of the vestigial structures and atavisms discussed above are consistent
with the evolutionary concept that they represent the expression of features
that were originally present in the evolutionary ancestors of the organisms in
which they occur. How does the YEC model account for these anomalies? In
particular, how does it explain the fact that the constraints put on the types
of anomalies are entirely consistent with those predicted by evolutionary
lineage?

7. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE STUDY OF BIOGEOGRAPHY

According to the evolution model, geographic isolation should play a
significant role in the distribution of species worldwide. In keeping with
this model, species that first evolved in a certain geographic setting and
were restricted in their movement to other areas should be found naturally
only in the areas in which they first appeared - even though there are no
compelling reasons that they could not have survived elsewhere. The facts
show that this is indeed the case. For example, overall there are some 13
families and about 180 unique species of marsupials found naturally only in
Australia, New Zealand, and New Guinea. The only monotremes (egg laying
mammals) are found in this geographical area and nowhere else. How does the
YEC model explain, in scientific terms, the migration of these animals to
the purported Ark prior to the Flood? (There is no evidence in the fossil
record that any of these animals ever existed endemically in the Middle
East.) Furthermore, how does the YEC model explain the subsequent migration
(after the purported Flood) of these animals back to their original
geographic locations? Particular emphasis should be placed on explaining how
animals such as the flightless Kiwi and the blind marsupial mole (which
lives only in sand) made the round trip and why faster moving placental
animals are virtually absent from Australia.

The now extinct flightless dodo bird existed only on an island in the
Indian Ocean. The slow moving three-toed sloth, armadillos, new world
monkeys, jaguars, rattlesnakes, and indigenous cacti exist only in the
Americas. The speed-challenged and clumsy giant spiny anteater exists only
in New Guinea. The Gila monster exists only in the American Southwest,
although it should be equally at home in the deserts of the Middle East (as
should be cacti and rattlesnakes). The flightless cormorant lives only in
the Galapagos and the penguins live in Antarctica. Fossas and lemurs are
endemic to Madagascar, but no monkeys or cats naturally inhabit this area.
Lungfishes, ostrich-like birds (ratite birds), and leptodactylid frogs occur
naturally only in South America, Africa, and Australia. Alligators, some
related species of giant salamander, and magnolias occur naturally only in
Eastern North America and East Asia (these two continents were once in close
proximity on the Laurasian contintent). As above, describe how the YEC model
provides a scientific explanation for the migration of these types of
species to and from their specific areas of habitation before and after the
Flood. Explain also why species are not distributed evenly amongst the
habitats for which they are equally well adapted. In particular, explain in
terms of the YEC model why there are no elephants on any Pacific islands, no
rattlesnakes or indigenous cacti in Australia or the Sahara desert, and no
amphibians on remote islands.

The earth consists of distinctive geographic regions, each characterized
by the presence of various organisms which have evolved to fill those
niches. If one studies a species across its geographic range, it is
frequently observed that it varies from place to place. Sometimes the
extreme representatives of this variable sequence even meet in close
proximity. For example, the herring gulls and the black-backed gulls coexist
in Britain. Although these species do not interbreed, they are connected in
a series of interbreeding populations that extend around the North Pole. The
populations immediately west of Britain look similar to herring gulls.
Moving in a clock-wise direction around the North Pole, the populations
gradually start looking more and more like black-backed gulls and less and
less like herring gulls. Their black-backed traits become predominant near
Siberia. The evolution of these two distinct species can be traced by simply
observing sequential morphological changes in populations throughout their
range. A similar relationship is observed with the Ensatina
salamanders of the Pacific coast. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html .) How does the YEC model account for this unidirectional sequence of
infinitesimal geographic variants with two different species at each end?
(See
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/1/l_041_01.html
and
"Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood" at
http://www.christianforums.com/t40474-biogeography-falsifies-the-worldwide-flood.html for more information.)

8. OBSERVATIONS FROM AGE DATING STUDIES

Essentially all radioactive isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a
billion years are no longer in existence. For the most part, the only
radioactive isotopes present are those with half-lives close to a billion
years or longer. The only radioactive isotopes present with shorter
half-lives are those that are being constantly replenished by natural means.
This distribution of isotopes is in good agreement with the other evidence
that shows Earth is about 4.56 billion years old. How does the YEC model
account for this current isotopic distribution?

There are in excess of forty different radiometric dating methods, and a
number of other methods such as those involving thermoluminescence, electron
spin resonance, and tree-ring, varve, and ice-core measurements. These
methods are in agreement the great majority of the time covering time spans
encompassing millions of years.

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly lend support to the old Earth model.
Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric
dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth scenario. Over a
thousand papers on radiometric dating are normally published in scientific,
peer-reviewed journals in a year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have
been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor
an old Earth.

When radiometric dating techniques are applied to meteorites, they
consistently give values close to 4.6 billion years.

Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for
many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close
to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Radioisotopes commonly used in dating techniques have been subjected to
extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and corrosive chemical
treatment without causing any significant changes in rates of radioactive
decay. Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully
verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several
thousand years. (See "Radiometric Dating, A
Christian Perspectvie" at
www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html and "Isochron Dating"
at
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html for more details and rebuttal of creationist arguments commonly raised
against these techniques.)

Using the current, observed rate of motion of the
Pacific Plate and the distances between the modern Hawaiian Islands, it is
possible to calculate the relative age differences between the Islands.
The ages determined by this method are in good agreement with those obtained
by K-Ar radiometric dating. (See "Hawaiian Islands: a falsification of
a
young earth" at
http://www.christianforums.com/t35581 .)

Like all scientific methods of analysis, radiometric dating techniques are not perfect
and are subject to interferences that can sometimes produce false results.
Analysis of inappropriate and/or improperly prepared samples gives erroneous
values. Nonetheless, how does the YEC model account for the high level of
consistency observed from using a variety of methods of analysis that place the
age of the Earth far in excess of the biblical limit of about 10,000 years.

The evidence specifically discussed in this challenge represents a miniscule
fraction of that which makes up the pro-evolution database that fills many
thousands of volumes of scientific journals worldwide. If YECs expect to have
their model accepted and to have it compete effectively with the evolution model
in the scientific community, they must demonstrate, using legitimate scientific
arguments, how their model accounts for and is predictive of observations such
as those summarized above. A number of creationists have made careers out of
attempting to reconcile the discrepancies between the observed facts and the
nebulous predictions of the YEC model. So far all they have produced is a
bewilderment of pseudoscientific rhetoric and, what often appears to be,
deliberate confusion amongst the lay public. None of their contrived
rationalizations have thus far passed scientific scrutiny. This challenge
provides them the opportunity to present new, scientifically valid arguments
instead of the ill-conceived and repeatedly debunked ad hocisms they are
accustomed to offering.